Righthaven v. Hoehn - Opening Brief

 Documents

 4 views
of 50
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Description
Case: 11-16751 11/28/2011 ID: 7981161 DktEntry: 7 Page: 1 of 50 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NO. 11-16751 RIGHTHAVEN LLC, Appellant v. WAYNE HOEHN, Appellee APPELLANT RIGHTHAVEN LLC’S OPENING BRIEF Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Case No. 2:11-cv-00050-PMP-RJJ SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD. Shawn A. Mangano, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6730 8367 West Flamingo Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89147 Phone: (702) 304-0432 Fax: (702) 922
Share
Tags
Transcript
  IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NO. 11-16751RIGHTHAVEN LLC,Appellantv.WAYNE HOEHN,Appellee APPELLANT RIGHTHAVEN LLC’S OPENING BRIEF Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of NevadaCase No. 2:11-cv-00050-PMP-RJJSHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD.Shawn A. Mangano, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 67308367 West Flamingo Road, Suite 100Las Vegas, Nevada 89147Phone: (702) 304-0432Fax: (702) 922-3851Counsel for Appellant Righthaven LLC Case: 11-16751 11/28/2011 ID: 7981161 DktEntry: 7 Page: 1 of 50  CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT  Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,Appellant Righthaven LLC, a Nevada limited-liability company, files thisstatement identifying parent corporations and publicly held companies thatown 10-percent or more of its stock: None.Dated this 28 th day of November, 2011.SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD.By: /s/ Shawn A. ManganoSHAWN A. MANGANO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6730shawn@manganolaw.com8367 West Flamingo RoadSuite 100Las Vegas, Nevada 89147  Attorney for Appellant     Righthaven LLC  Case: 11-16751 11/28/2011 ID: 7981161 DktEntry: 7 Page: 2 of 50  3 TABLE OF CONTENTSI. STATEMENT   OF   JURISDICTION ...................................................... 1II. ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW .................................................. 2III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................. 3IV. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS .............................................. 4V. ARGUMENT SUMMARY .................................................................. 10VI. ARGUMENT ....................................................................................... 12  A. The District Court Erred in Concluding it Lacked Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under  Silvers Over Righthaven’s Copyright InfringementAction Based on Its Interpretation of The Assignment And The SAA. .. 12  B. The District Court Erred in Finding it Lacked Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the Amendment. ........................................................ 24  C. The District Court Erred by Substantively Adjudicating The Merits of The Defendant’s Fair Use Defense After Determining That it LackedSubject Matter Jurisdiction Over The Dispute. ....................................... 26  D. Assuming Subject Matter is Found to Exist Upon Review, TheDistrict Court Erred in Granting Summary Judgment on Fair UseGrounds in View of The Defendant’s 100% Unauthorized Replication of The Work. ................................................................................................ 29  1.   The District Court Erred in Its Purpose And Character of The Use Analysis. ....................................................................................... 30  2.   The District Court Erred in Its Nature of The Copyrighted Work  Analysis. ........................................................................................ 35  3.   The District Court Erred in Its Analysis of the Amount of TheCopyrighted Work Used. ............................................................... 37  4. The District Court Erred in Its Effect Upon The Potential Market  For The Work Analysis. ................................................................. 38  V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 40 Case: 11-16751 11/28/2011 ID: 7981161 DktEntry: 7 Page: 3 of 50  TABLE OF AUTHORITIESF EDERAL C ASES    A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1015 (9th Cir. 2001)----------------------------------------------------------------------- 29, 33, 31, 39  ABKCO Music, Inc. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 944 F.2d 971, 980 (2d Cir.1991) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 15  Atwood v. Fort Peck Tribal Court Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes, 513 F.3d943, 946 (9th Cir. 2008) -------------------------------------------------------- 12  Burnett v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 491 F.Supp.2d 962, 967(C.D. Cal. 2007) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 30 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 577 (1994) -------- 29, 39 Cone Corp. v. Florida Dep’t of Transp., 921 F.2d 1190, 1203 n. 42 (11thCir. 1991) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28 Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co., 775 F.2d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir.1985) ------- 28  Fisher v. Dees, 794 F.2d 432, 435-36 (9th Cir. 1986) ------------------------ 30  Haper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enter., 471 U.S.539, 562 (1985) 33  Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Moral Majority, Inc., 796 F.2d 1148, 1155 (9thCir. 1986) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37  Key Maps, Inc. v. Pruitt, 470 F. Supp. 33, 38 (S.D. Tex. 1978). ------------ 21 Marcus v. Rowley, 695 F.2d 1171, 1177 (9th Cir. 1983) --------------------- 36 Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380-81 (9th Cir. 1988) -------------------------------------- 27  Nolan v. Heald College, 551 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2009) -------------- 30 Orff v. United States, 358 F.3d 1137, 1149 (9th Cir. 2004) ------------------ 27  Pressley’s Estate v. Russen, 513 F. Supp. 1339, 1350 (D. N. J. 1981) ----- 21  Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577 (1999) ---------------- 27 Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entm’t Inc. , 402 F.3d 881, 884 (9th Cir. 2005)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------  passimSony Computer Entm’t, Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596, 607 (9th Cir.2000) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 39 Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 451 (1984)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 39 Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998) 27 Supermarket of Homes, Inc. v. San Fernando Valley Bd. of Realtors, 786F.2d 1400, 1409 (9th Cir. 1986) ----------------------------------------------- 36 Wages v. IRS, 915 F.2d 1230, 1234 (9th Cir.1990) --------------------------- 27 Walt Disney Prods. v. Air Pirates, 581 F.2d 751, 757 (9th Cir. 1978) ----- 37 Wilbur v. Locke, 423 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2005) ------------------------ 27 Case: 11-16751 11/28/2011 ID: 7981161 DktEntry: 7 Page: 4 of 50
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks